Loading document...
Application No.: 14/00885/C Applicant: Mr David Fisher & Mrs Shan Fisher Proposal: Extension to residential curtilage of dwelling (retrospective) Site Address: Part of Field 414242 adjacent to Kimmeragh Ballafesson Road Port Erin Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.08.2014 Site Visit: 06.08.2014 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.1 The site is a strip of land which runs alongside the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Kimmeragh which is one of three dwellings which sit somewhat on their own on the south eastern side of the Ballafesson Road. The two dwellings which lie to the south west are "Mizpah", closest to the application property, and "The Gables" further to the south west. - 1.2 Each of the three dwellings has a contiguous boundary to the open, agricultural land to the south east. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the extension of the residential curtilage out into the agricultural land of 8.3m along the full length of the rear boundary. The new rear boundary will be formed by a "post and wire boundary fence and shrub hedge". No specific details of the shrubs are provided. - 2.2 The application is retrospective and the application the result of enforcement action. The applicant is seeking the extension in order to provide more garden space. They have recently felled a number of leylandii trees which has opened up the site both in terms of there being more space but also in terms of how visible the property is from the Ballafesson Road. - 2.3 The dwelling is a modern property which has had a large dormer added at the rear which is now visible from the public highway. This is clad in tiles to match the house which reduces its impact a little. - 2.4 The rear of the property is 1.3m from the rear boundary at present. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Residential and within the settlement boundary of Ballafesson. The land to the rear into which the residential curtilage is to be extended, is designated as Open Space not designated for a particular purpose.
3.2 As such the following policies are relevant to the consideration of the application:
Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.1 There have been applications for the alterations and extensions of the property but these are not considered relevant to the consideration of the current application. Perhaps of more relevance are other applications for extensions of residential curtilages as follows. - 4.2 Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown (PA 12/00999). This permission related to a proposal to extend that residential curtilage by around 750 sq m. The reporting officer recommended that the application be permitted and the Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal would be contrary to EP 1 and would undermine the openness and rural character of the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The appeal inspector concluded however that whilst "in principle...the proposal is contrary to policy EP1...however, the policy also seeks to ensure that the development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of the development" (his paragraph 11). He states that the boundary treatment would limit views of the extended curtilage which was considered by him to be appropriate for a garden use (paragraph 12) and concluded that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and quality of the landscape and the application was recommended by him for approval and the Minister accepted this recommendation. - 4.3 By comparison, the same inspector concluded in respect of another application which involved an increase of an existing residential curtilage, PA 12/00832 for Cronk ny Killey in Maughold, that that proposal resulted in "a prominent and noticeable encroachment of built form into the open countryside" (paragraph 15). ). Also, PA 12/01683 proposed a replacement dwelling at Mount Gawne Road which also involved an increase in the residential curtilage to accommodate the larger dwelling. The Inspector in that case found that, "...the widening of
5.1 Rushen Commissioners do not object. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The critical issues in this case are whether the extension to the residential curtilage would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the countryside and secondly whether the extension would adversely affect the amenities of those in the adjacent property.
6.2 The rear boundary is visible from the main road to the north east of the site. However, from there the residential curtilage would still be only a small Part of the field to the rear and the position of the boundary in itself is not particularly critical. What is perhaps more important is whether the resulting curtilage would appear excessive for the property which sits within it. In terms of proportion compared with the existing, the additional is quite significant - somewhere near doubling the existing. However, in effect what it proposes is a deepening of the curtilage into the field by 8m. The reason for this relates to the desire by the applicants to have more space for their family to use and for additional planting to be introduced and potentially for a further extension to be created avoiding the extension of the property alongside the road, which would be more noticeable and less private. - 6.3 The impact on the environment is limited by the remaining expanse of field compared with which the residential curtilage is still relatively modest. Also, the view of the curtilage is limited to a section of road which is around 200m and from where it is unlikely that the change in position of the boundary will be significant in the overall landscape. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions which restrict the application of the provisions of the permitted development order to the existing curtilage to minimise the impact of the extension, and also to require that the new boundary is defined by natural planting of indigenous species or a Manx bank as defined in Planning Circular 1/92.
7.1 The local authority, Rushen Parish Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6.4(e) deemed an interested person and as such should be afforded party status to this application.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT At the meeting held on the 1st September 2014, the Planning Committee overturned the recommendation of the case officer and refused the application.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
20.08.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
R 1. The proposed extension of the residential curtilage into open agricultural land would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and would result in a visible expansion of the residential curtilage into the open space surrounding the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. This visual impact would be exacerbated by the introduction of any built structures whether these be ancillary structures such as sheds or greenhouses or physical extensions to the existing dwelling. It is not considered that this impact could be satisfactorily mitigated by planting.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 1st September 2014 Signed : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES see above
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
